Jharkhand Court August 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manoj Kumar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR247(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. I have considered the LA.2. This I.A. is allowed and the averments made in the LA. are taken as part of the main writ petition.3. I.A. stands disposed of.W.P. (S) No. 460 of 20064. Petitioner is aggrieved of the allocation made by the State Advisory Committee for bifurcation of the Cadre and consequential allocation of the State in terms of Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. Petitioner has been allocated the State of Bihar. He filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand and 8 weeks' interim stay was granted. Petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn with a direction for extending the stay for four weeks. Admittedly, four weeks' stay has already elapsed as it appears from the order passed by the L.P.A. Bench on 02nd of January, 2006. Petitioner has also referred to Annexure-4, 5 and 6 to this petition...
Raghunath Manjhi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR34(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Both the appellants were tried for the charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Somra Manjhi in furtherance of their common intention. On being found guilty they were convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The case of the prosecution is that Snmra Manjhi (the informant) came to his village home at Burha Behra in the evening at about 6 p.m. on 5.11.2000 and when he did not find his wife and children, he asked about their whereabouts from his mother upon which his mother told him that they had left home in the morning without telling anyone. Thereafter, the informant along with co-villager Somra Manjhi came to his uncle-in-laws house at village Jaroo at about 8 p.m. and met with his uncle-in-law Duryodhan Manjhi from whom he asked about his wife and son. His uncle-in-law told him that they have not come to his place. Upon it,...
Shravan Kumar Vs. Bihar- School Examination Board and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR105(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner was admitted in Primary Teachers' Training College, Konbir, Nawatoli of Gumla District and he completed the Teachers Training Course for the Session 1989-91. He appeared in Primary Teachers' Training Examination under Roll Code, 1501 and Roll No. 33. Examination was held on and August, 1994. It is stated that petitioner is said to have been awarded 13 marks for the subject Arts and Music (AMU). It is alleged that actually petitioner has secured 33 marks. He has placed on record mark-sheet (Annexure-2), which is said to be signed by the Principal of Primary Teachers' Education College, Konbir, Nawatoli, District Gumla. In this document, 33 marks are shown against the subject of AMU.2. A similar issue came up for consideration in WP (C) No. 2882 of 2002, Manoj Kumar Singh v. Bihar Secondary School Examination Board and Ors. 2002 (2) JCR 443 (Jhr). This petition was disposed of with the following directions:As the matter requires determination by the responde...
Anguri Devi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1074; I(2007)DMC189; [2007(1)JCR162(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. All the three appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death of the deceased, Sema Devi. The trial Court i.e. learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, by his judgment dated 20th January. 2004, in Sessions Case No. 284 of 2001 convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years.2. The case was initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged on 21.2.2001 by Sri Krishna Mahto (PW-3) against these three appellants. In the fardbeyan, the informant alleged that he had got his daughter, Sema Devi married in the year 1996 with Arun Mandal (appellant No. 3), the son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. After marriage, she went to her in-law's place. After sometime, the Son-in-Law. Arun Mandal, Samdhi, Bhagwat Mandal and his wife, Anguri Devi started torturing his daughter in various...
Mahendra Gayali Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR604(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner claim to have acquired perfect Raiyati title to Plot No. 303 at Mauza Swahnidih, Police Station, Baghmara. This plot bearing 3.20. acre was later on re-numbered as Plot Nos. 523 and 524. A dispute arose with regard to the aforesaid plots and objections were filed under Section 83 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in respect to the new plot No. 523 being Case No. 23 of 1989. On rejection of the objections, Revisional Case No. 7120 of 1988 under Section 89 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed. This Revision petition was allowed vide order dated 27th of November, 1990. The respondent-BCCL-Company preferred an Appeal Case No. 76 of 1990 in respect to new Plot No. 523, which was dismissed and consequent Appeal Case No. 77 of 1992 was preferred before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. This second appeal was allowed by the Commissioner on 27th of August. 1996. Petitioner preferred a writ application, being CWJC No. 3204 of 1996(R)...
Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board Through Its Chair ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR605(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for allowing him the entire promotional benefits allegedly with-held by the Board with effect from 15.5.1981 to 26.2.1999.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was awarded several punishments by resolution dated 9.4.1999 (Annexure 1). One of such punishment was that he will not be granted promotion for ten years with effect from 27.2.1999. He further submitted that his case was kept pending during the aforesaid period by the Departmental Promotion Committee and. therefore, he is entitled to promotional benefits, otherwise it will amount to awarding punishment for a longer period than the actual punishment awarded of not granting promotion for ten years.3. Mr. R. Krishna and Mr. A.K. Jha appearing for the respondents Boards submitted as follows. A First Information Report being Vigilance Police Case No 201 dated 8.4.1981 was lodged by an officer of the Vigilance Department against the petitioner...
Murli Modak and Hari Sao Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR398(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Both the criminal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 26/02/2004, passed by the passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.- IX, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1982 and, therefore, they were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the appellants and one another namely Devendra Hazam were charged for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. for committing the dacoity on 23/24-05-1979 23/24-05-1979 in village Kulsud on Ranchi-Purulia Road, P.S.- Silli, District- Ranchi. The appellants Hari Sao (in Cr. Appeal No. 477/04) and Murli Modak (in Cr. Appeal No. 410/04) were further charged for the offence under Section 412 IPC for dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property knowing or has reason to believe that the same was transferred by commission of dacoity. The learned trial court by the impugned judgment dated 26/02/2004 in Sessions Trial No. 303/1982, passed by the learned Additional ...
Police 424 Ram Lagan Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR250(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner is serving as a Constable in the Police Department of the State. He was served with a Memo of charge vide Memo No. 2569 dated 04.12.2004, alleging, therein, that he remained absent from 19.10.2004 at 15:30 hours to 27th of October, 2004 i.e. eight days without taking permission. He was accused of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (i) (ii) (iii) of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. He replied to the chargesheet and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. One Shri Rajenra Sahu, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report dated 28th of March, 2005 to the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police II. The Commandant has passed the impugned order dated 10th of May, 2005 imposing punishment of withholding of increments for six months. Petitioner has assailed the validity of the aforesaid order, inter alia, on the following grounds.(i) That Enquiry Report was furnished to the ...
Ushman Ansari and anr. Vs. S.A.i.L. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR166(Jhr)]
1. All these Contempt Applications arise out of a common order dated 7th April, 1998 passed by a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 161 of 1996(R) and L.P.A. No. 162 of 1996(R), wherein certain directions were given to Opposite party No. 2 for providing appointment to land losers.2. While in some of the cases it is stated that the aforesaid judgment dated 7th April, 1998 has not been complied in letter and spirit, in rest of the cases, it is stated that the subsequent order passed in other Contempt proceeding arising out of the same judgment has not yet been complied.3. From the earlier order passed by this Court and the enclosures, it will be evident that a panel of displaced persons was prepared in the year 1991 containing names of about 2010 persons. After hearing the parties in L.P.A Nos. 161 of 1996(R) and L.P.A. No. 162 of 1996(R), the following direction was issued by the Court:'Para-8'. Both these appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforementioned scheme proposed by t...
Coal Mines Officers' Association of India Vs. State and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR547(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. In all the cases as common questions of law are involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioner Coal Mines Officers' Association of India of W.P.(S) No. 5374 of 2003 has challenged the Notification No. 1308 dated 29th May, 2003, whereby and where under, the State of Jharkhand, in exercise of power conferred by Section 13(c) of the Hazaribagh Mines Board Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'Mines Board Act, 1936'), framed Hazaribagh Mines Board Profession Tax Bye-laws, 2003' and imposed Professional Tax on different items, such as salary, purchase of coal and other minerals. The consequential orders passed by one or other authority have also been challenged by the petitioners.Petitioner Rungta Project Ltd. & anr. of W.P.(T) No. 4987 of 2004 while sought for a declaration that the Hazaribagh Mines Board Act, 1936 is ultra vires to entry 54 List 1 of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, further s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »